Still, the numbers imbalance is there. Japan went into the 20th century modernized, stable, an economic powerhouse, and expansionist; China went into it disorganized, disunited, corrupt, fragmented, and behind on military tech. Japan still got only a small part of China under its control for a decade or so of constant war.
Besides, the conquest dynasties were always the newest steppe nomads on the block, not a long-time regional rival with its own long cultural history that would have no reason to assimilate.
Both good points.
On the other hand... We don't know what kind of condition China was in in-verse right after the Fall. If it was in chaos - which is implied, the map we see of Japan-occupied China is like
half the size - then it's entirely likely that the Japanese didn't so much 'invade' as 'rescue' China. I have an idea of remaining Chinese nobility/bureaucracy and what was left of their military - the country in chaos, the Emperor possibly dead, etc. - making a devil's bargain with Japan, which is sold to them like this:
'You want order back again, right? You want the country quiet, and you want it strengthened so it can stand against the cannibals and the foreign devils? We have the Western technical knowledge and the disciplined military - you invite us in, you crown the
tenno as Son of Heaven, you state that he has the Mandate of Heaven and the whole lot, and we'll pacify the country for you and make sure you remain in power'. They agree, and the peasantry fall in line because they figure even the Eastern Devils are better than the post-Fall madness.
Yes and no. We'd accept a dictator, a "Supreme Life President" or a "Temporary State of Emergency" or a military junta--we wouldn't like it but we'd accept it--but a King would be far too much until at least the 3rd generation.
this^^^^
Pretenses of democracy with de facto dynasties. Think the early Roman Empire, where calling someone "he wants to be King!" was a surefire way to start a lynch mob.
Fair enough.
Bear in mind: I'm
not defending the Emberverse
as written. Stirling did a terrible job for the most part (I liked Tiphaine d'Ath as a character and I liked the idea of a LOTR-inspired group springing up, but beyond that...meh). What I'm defending is the general idea: I think that after an event like the Change, any government would be hard-pressed to hold the centre, and in countries as vast as the US, Russia and China it'd be impossible. And yes, I know that the US grew before a lot of modern tech...but that argument fails to take into account the sheer shock of the Change and how quickly it happens. The government/military won't just know what to do right away, they need time...and every day of delay is making it harder and harder. Between the massive and constantly-rising death toll from stuff that would have been preventable, religious mania, severe depression (and a colossal suicide rate - which will most likely include a few senior government and military officials), and every scumbag going deciding to take advantage of the situation, there'll be chaos and power vacuums inevitably.
I'd agree that we won't see someone declaring himself a King. But I don't think America or any other large, sprawling country that's come to depend on modern technology to hold it together - as America does, let's be honest - will be able to hold together. There will be regional strongmen, there will be people flocking to whoever offers food, water and safety. These men won't call themselves 'Kings', but they'll basically
be Kings in all but name. And the longer people are under their rule - and as long as these strongmen aren't cartoonishly evil, are fair and make sure they follow through with their promises of food, water and safety - then people will inevitably stick close to them. People fear the unknown and after an event like this, they'll fear things getting worse.
Say...it's six years after the Change. A guy in Northern Washington has cobbled together a large community under his rule. Call him the Warden. The Warden's a strict ruler, and he's not letting power out of his hands, but he's not being overtly repressive either and he does keep his people safe and fed. Then, a successor government appears on the scene: they control about the same amount of territory as the Warden and they want him to join up. He won't, because he enjoys the power...and his people won't, because they know the Warden. They know he follows through on his promises, they know that life's harder than it was pre-Change, but it's far better than things were right away. They
won't know this successor government - for all they know, it's a tyrannical hellhole that uses the US flag to try to sucker people in. Most of them, therefore, will stick with the Warden, because, well, 'devil you know' and they don't want to risk things getting worse for them.
Again: that's for the general scenario. How it got written, though... Yeah, no.